Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial

被引:24
作者
Buhse, Susanne [1 ]
Kuniss, Nadine [2 ,3 ]
Liethmann, Kathrin [1 ,4 ]
Mueller, Ulrich Alfons [2 ,3 ]
Lehmann, Thomas [5 ]
Muehlhauser, Ingrid [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hamburg, Hlth Sci & Educ, Hamburg, Germany
[2] Jena Univ Hosp, Dept Internal Med Endocrinol & Metab Dis 3, Jena, Germany
[3] Diabet Ctr Thuringia, Jena, Germany
[4] Univ Med Ctr Schleswig Holstein, Inst Med Psychol & Sociol, Kiel, Germany
[5] Jena Univ Hosp, Ctr Clin Studies, Jena, Germany
关键词
DISEASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS; STATUTORY HEALTH-INSURANCE; TEACHING PROGRAM; STRUCTURED TREATMENT; GERMANY; AID; MELLITUS;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024004
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To translate an informed shared decision-making programme (ISDM-P) for patients with type 2 diabetes from a specialised diabetes centre to the primary care setting. Design Patient-blinded, two-arm multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial of 6 months follow-up; concealed randomisation of practices after patient recruitment and acquisition of baseline data. Setting 22 general practices providing care according to the German Disease Management Programme (DMP) for type 2 diabetes. Participants 279 of 363 eligible patients without myocardial infarction or stroke. Interventions The ISDM-P comprises a patient decision aid, a corresponding group teaching session provided by medical assistants and a structured patient-physician encounter. Control group received standard DMP care. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary endpoint was patient adherence to antihypertensive or statin drug therapy by comparing prescriptions and patient-reported uptake after 6 months. Secondary endpoints included informed choice, risk knowledge (score 0-11 from 11 questions) and prioritised treatment goals of patients and doctors. Results ISDM-P: 11 practices with 151 patients; standard care: 11 practices with 128 patients; attrition rate: 3.9%. There was no difference between groups regarding the primary endpoint. Mean drug adherence rates were high for both groups (80% for antihypertensive and 91% for statin treatment). More ISDM-P patients made informed choices regarding statin intake, 34% vs 3%, OR 16.6 (95% CI 4.4 to 63.0), blood pressure control, 39% vs 3%, OR 22.2 (95% CI 5.3 to 93.3) and glycated haemoglobin, 43% vs 3%, OR 26.0 (95% CI 6.5 to 104.8). ISDM-P patients achieved higher levels of risk knowledge, with a mean score of 6.96 vs 2.86, difference 4.06 (95% CI 2.96 to 5.17). In the ISDM-P group, agreement on prioritised treatment goals between patients and doctors was higher, with 88.5% vs 57%. Conclusions The ISDM-P was successfully implemented in general practices. Adherence to medication was very high making improvements hardly detectable.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 43 条
[11]   The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review [J].
Gartner, Fania R. ;
Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna ;
Smith, Ian P. ;
Scholl, Isabelle ;
Stiggelbout, Anne M. ;
Pieterse, Arwen H. .
PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (02)
[12]  
German Medical Association National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Association of the Scientific Medical Societies, 2012, NAT VERS DIAB STRUK
[13]  
German Medical Association National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Association of the Scientific Medical Societies, 2013, NAT VERS THER TYP 2
[14]  
German Medical Association National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Association of the Scientific Medical Societies, 2015, PAT NAT VERS THER TY
[15]  
Gigerenzer G., 2007, PSYCHOL SCI PUBL INT, V8, P53, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1539-6053.2008.00033.X
[16]   Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting [J].
Grant, Aileen ;
Treweek, Shaun ;
Dreischulte, Tobias ;
Foy, Robbie ;
Guthrie, Bruce .
TRIALS, 2013, 14
[17]   EVALUATION OF A STRUCTURED TREATMENT AND TEACHING PROGRAM FOR NON-INSULIN-TREATED TYPE-II DIABETIC OUTPATIENTS IN GERMANY AFTER THE NATIONWIDE INTRODUCTION OF REIMBURSEMENT POLICY FOR PHYSICIANS [J].
GRUESSER, M ;
BOTT, U ;
ELLERMANN, P ;
KRONSBEIN, P ;
JOERGENS, V .
DIABETES CARE, 1993, 16 (09) :1268-1275
[18]   Structured treatment and teaching programme for type 2 diabetic patients on conventional insulin treatment: Evaluation of reimbursement policy [J].
Gruesser, M ;
Hartmann, P ;
Schlottmann, N ;
Joergens, V .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 1996, 29 (01) :123-130
[19]   Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2015: A Patient-Centered Approach Update to a Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes [J].
Inzucchi, Silvio E. ;
Bergenstal, Richard M. ;
Buse, John B. ;
Diamant, Michaela ;
Ferrannini, Ele ;
Nauck, Michael ;
Peters, Anne L. ;
Tsapas, Apostolos ;
Wender, Richard ;
Matthews, David R. .
DIABETES CARE, 2015, 38 (01) :140-149
[20]   Implementing shared decision making in the NHS: lessons from the MAGIC programme [J].
Joseph-Williams, Natalie ;
Lloyd, Amy ;
Edwards, Adrian ;
Stobbart, Lynne ;
Tomson, David ;
Macphail, Sheila ;
Dodd, Carole ;
Brain, Kate ;
Elwyn, Glyn ;
Thomson, Richard .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2017, 357 :j1744